Defense of the True Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, Book 3 · Chapter 14
Cha. 14.For whether the authors (which they alledge) say that we doo eate Christes fleshe and drynke his bloudde,One br…fe answere to all. or that the bread and wyne is conuerted into the substance of his fleshe and bloud, or that we bee tourned into his fleshe, or that in the Lordes supper we do receaue his very fleshe and bloudde, or that in the breadde and wyne is receaued that whyche dydde hange vppon the Crosse, or that Christe hathe lefte his fleshe with vsus, or that Christe is in vsus, and wee in hym, or that he is whole here and whole in heauen, or that the same thynge is in the Chalice, whyche flowed oute of his syde, or that the same thynge is receaued with our mouthe, whyche is beleued with our faythe, or that the breade and wyne after the Consecration, bee the body and bloudde of CHRISTE, or that we bee nouryshed with the body and bloude of Christ, or that Christe is bothe gone hence, and is styll here, or that Christe at his laste supper, bare hym selfe in his owne handes.
These and all other like sentences may not be vnderstanded of Christes humanitee litterally and carnally, as the wordes in common speeche doo proprely signifie, (for so doothe no man eate Christes fleshe, nor drinke his bloudde, nor so is not the bread and wyne tourned into his fleshe and bloud, nor we into hym: nor so is the breade & wyne after the consecration his flesh and blud, nor so is not his fleshe and bloud whole heere in earth, eaten with our mouthes) nor so dydde not Christe take hym selfe in his owne handes.
But these and all other lyke sentences (whiche declare Christe to be here in earth, and to be eaten and dronken of christian people) are to bee vnderstande, eyther of his diuine nature (wherby he is eu…ry where) or els they must be vnderstanded figuratiuely, o… spiritually. For figuratiuely he is in the breade and wyne, and spiritually he is in them that worthyly eate and drinke the bread and wyne, but really, carnally, and corporally he is onelyonly in heauen, frome whence he shall come to iudge the quycke and deade.
This briefe aunswere wyll suffice for all that the Papistes can bryng for their pourpose, yf it bee aptely applyed. And for the more euidence hereof, I shall applye the same to somme suche places, as the Papistes thynke doo make moste for theym: that by the aunswere to those places, the reste maye bee the more easyly aunswered vntounto.
The answere to Clemens Epistol 2.They alledge saint Clement, whose words be these, as thei report. The sacramentes of Gods secretes are cōmitted to thre degrees: to a priest, a Deacon, and a minister: whiche with feare and tremblyng ought to kepe the leauynges of the broken peeces of the Lordes body, that no corruption be founde in the holy place, least by negligence great iniury bee done to the portion of the Lordes bodye. And by and by foloweth: So many hostes muste bee offered in the altare, as wyll suffice for the people. And yf any remayn, they must not be kept vntill the mornyng, but be spent and consumed of the clearkes, with feare and tremblynge. And they that consume the residue of the Lordes bodye, may not by and by take other common meates, least they shoulde mixte that holy portion, with the meate which is dygested by the bealy, and auoyded by the foundament. Therfore if the Lordes portion bee eaten in the mornynge, the ministers that consume it, must faste vntounto sixe of the clocke: and if thei do take it at thre or four of the clocke, the minister must fast vntyl the euenyng.
Thus much writeth Clement of this matter: If the Epistle, which they alledge, were Clementes (as in dede it is not.) But they hauehave fayned many thynges in other mennes names, thereby to stablyshe their fayned purposes. But whose so euer the Epistle was, if it be throughly consydered, it maketh muche more agaynst the Pap…stes, than for their pourpose. For by the same Epistle appereth euidently thre speciall thyngs against the errours of the Papistes.
The fyrst is, that the breade in the sacramente is called the Lordes body: and the peeces of the broken bread be called the peeces and fragmentes of the Lordes body. whyche can not bee vnderstande, but fyguratiuely.
The seconde is, that the bread oughte not to be reserued and hanged vp, as the Papistes eueryevery where doo vse.
The third is, that the priests ought not to receyue the sacrament alone (as the Papistes commonly do, makyng a sale therof vntounto the people) but they ought to cōmunicate with the people.
And here it is diligently to bee noted, that we ought not vnreuerently and vnaduisedly to approche vntounto the meate of the Lordes table, as we doo to other common meates and drynkes, but with great feare and dreade: least we shulde come to that holy table vnworthely, wherein is not onelyonly represented, but also spirytually geuen vntounto vsus very CHRISTE hym selfe. And therfore we ought to come to that boord of the Lorde with all reuerence, faythe, louelove, and charitee, feare and dread, accordyng to the same.
Ignatius in Epistola ad Ephesianos Irenaeus Lib 5. cōtra Valentin.Here I passeouer Ignatius and Ireneus, whiche make nothyng for the Papistes opinions, but stand in the commendacion of the holy Communion, and in exhortacion of all men to the often and godly receiuyng therrof. And yet neither they, nor no manne els, can extolle and cōmende the same sufficiently, accordyng to the dignitee therof, if it bee godly vsed, as it ought to be.
The answere to Dionysius de eccle. Hierarch. cap. 3.Dionysius also, whom they allege to praise & extoll this sacrament (as in dede it is most worthy, beyng a sacrament of moste high dignitee and perfection, representyng vntounto vsus our moste perfect spiritual coniunction vntounto Christ, & oure continual norishyng, feadyng, comforte, & spiritual life in him,) yet he neuer sayd that the fleshe and bloud of Christ was in the bread and wyne, really, corporally, sensibly and naturally (as the Papistes wold beare vsus in hand) but he calleth euer the bread and wyne signes, pledges and tokens, declaryng vntounto the faythfull receiuers of the same, that they receiue Christ spiritually, and that they spiritually eate his flesh & drynke his bloud. And although the bread and wyne bee the figures, signes, and tokens of Christes fleshe and bloud (as sainct Dionyse calleth them bothe before the consecracion and after) yet the Greke annotations vponupon the same Dionyse do say, that the very thynges them selfes be aboue in heauen.
And as the same Dionyse maketh nothing for the Papistes opinions in this point of Christes reall and corporall presence, so in diuers other things he maketh quite and clean against them, and that specially in thre pointes, In transubstantiation, in reseruacion of the sacrament, and in the receauinge of the same by the priest alone.
Furthermore they do alleage Tertulian,The aunswere to Tertullanus de resure… ctiōe carnis. that hee constantly affirmeth, that in the sacramente of the altare we do eate the body and drinke the blud of our sauiour Christ. To whō we graunte that our flesh eateth and drinketh the bread and wyne, whiche be called the bodye and bloude of Christ, bicause (as Tertulian saith) they do represent his body and bloude, although they bee not really the same in very deed. And we graunt also, that oure soules by faith do eate his verye body and drinke his bludde, but that is spiritually, suckinge out of the same euerlastinge lyfe. But we deny that vntounto this spirituall feedinge is required any reall and corporall presence.
And therefore this Tertulian speaketh nothinge against the truthe of our catholicke doctrine, but he speaketh many thinges most plainly for vsus, and against the Papistes, and specially in thre pointes. Firste in that he saithe that Christe called breade his body. The second that Christ called it so, bycause it representeth his bodye. The thirde, in that he saithe, that by these wordes of Christe, This is my bodye, is mente, This is a figure of my body.
The aunswere to Origenes in Numer. Homi. 7.Moreouer they allege for theym Origen (because they would seeme to hauehave many aunciente authors, fauourers of their erronious doctrine) whiche Origen is moste clearely against them. For although hee do saye (as they allege) that those things which before were signified by obscure figures, be nowe truely in dede and in theyr very nature and kinde accomplished and fulfilled. And for the declaration therof, he bringeth forth thre examples, One of the stone that floweth water, an other of the sea and cloude, and the thirde of Manna, whiche in the olde testamente did signifie Christ to come, who is now come in deed, and is manifested and exhibited vntounto vsus, as it were face to face, and sensibly, in his worde, in the sacrament of regeneracion, and in the sacramentes of breade and wine, Yet Origene mente not, that Christ is corporally either in his worde, or in the water of baptime, or in the breade and wine, nor that we carnally and corporally be regenerated and borne againe, or eate Christes flesh & blood. For our regeneracion in Christ, is spiritual, and our eating and drinking is a spirituall feeding, which kinde of regeneration and feeding, requireth no real and corporall presence of Christ, but onlye his presence in spirite, grace, and effectuall operacion.
And that Origen thus mente, that Christes fleshe is a spirituall meate, and his bludde a spirituall drinke, and that the eating and drynkinge of his fleshe and bloude maye not bee vnderstande literallye, but spirytually, it is manifested by Origenes owne woordes, in his seuenth homylye vppon the booke called Leuiticus:In Leuit. hom. 7. where hee sheweth that those wordes must bee vnderstande figuratiuely, and who so euer vnderstandeth theim otherwise, they bee deceaued and take harme by their owne grosse vnderstandinge.
And likewise ment Cypriane,The aunswere to Cyprianus lib. 2. epist. 3 in those places whiche the aduersaries of the truthe alleadge of hym, concernynge the true eatinge of Christes very fleshe and drinkinge of his bludde.
For Cyprian spake of no grosse and carnal eatinge with the mouth, but of an inward spirituall and pure eatinge with hart and mind, which is to beeleue in oure hartes, that his fleshe was …ente and torne for vsus vppon the crosse, and his bludde shedde for our redemption, and that the same fleshe and bludde nowe sitteth at the ryght hande of the father, making continual intercession for vsus, and to imprint and digest this in our mindes, puttinge our whole affiaunce and trust in him, as touchinge our saluacion and offering ourselues clearlye vntounto hym, to louelove and serue hym all the dayes of our lyfe: thys is trewely, sincerely, and spiritually to eate his flesh and to drinke his bludde.
And this sacryfyce of Christe vponupon the crosse, was that oblation whyche Cypriane saithe was figured and signifyed before it was done,Gen. 9. Gen. 14. by the wyne whiche Noe dranke, and by the breade and wyne whiche Melchisedech gaue to Abraham, and by many other figures which Cyprian there reherseth.
And nowe when Christe is come, and hath accomplished that sacrifice, the same is figured, signified, and represented vntounto vsus, by that bread and wine, which faithfull people receaue daylye in the holy communion. Wherein lyke as wyth their mouths carnally thei eat the bread & drink the wyne, so by their faithe spiritually they eate Christes very fleshe and drinke his very bloode. And herby it appeareth that S. Cyprian clearly affirmeth the moste true doctrine, and is wholy vponupon oure side.
And against the Papistes hee teacheth moste plainly, that the communion ought to be receaued of all men vnderunder bothe the kindes: and that CHRIST called breade his body, and wyne hys bloude: and that there is no transubstantiation (but that breade remaineth there as a figure, to represent Christes body, and wine to represente his blud) and that those whyche bee not y• lyuely membres of Christe, doo eate the breade and drynke the wyne, and bee nouryshed by theym, but the verye fleshe and bludde of CHRIST, they neyther eate nor drinke.
Thus hauehave you hearde declared the mynde of Saint Cyprian.
The aunswere to Hylarius. 8. … trinitateBut Hylarius (thynke they) is plainest for theym in this matter, whose woordes they translate thus.
If the worde was made verely fleshe, & we verely receiue the worde beyng fleshe, in our Lordes meate, howe shall not Christ be thought to dwel naturally in vsus? who beyng borne man, hath taken vntounto him the nature of our fleshe, that can not be seuered, and hath put together the nature of his fleshe to the nature of his eternitee, vnderunder the sacrament of the communion of his fleshe vntounto vsus. For so wee bee all one, because the father is in Christe, and Christe in vsus. Wherfore whosoeuer will denye the father to be naturally in Christe, he muste denye fyrste either him selfe to be naturally in Christ, or Christ to be naturally in him. For the beyng of the father in Christe, and the beyng of Christ in vsus, maketh vsus to be one in them. And therfore if Christ hauehave taken verily the fleshe of our body, and the man that was verely borne of the virgyn Mary is Christ, and also we receiue vnderunder the true mysterye the fleshe of his body, by meanes whereof wee shall bee one (for the father is in Christ, and Christ in vsus) how shall that be called the vnitee of wylle, when the naturall propertie brought to passe by the sacrament, is the sacrament of vnitee?
Thus doth the Papistes (the aduersaries of Gods woorde and of his trueth) allege the authoritee of Hilarius (either peruersely and purposely, as it seemeth, vntruely cityng him, and wrastyng his wordes to their purpose) or els not truely vnderstandyng him.
For although he sayth that Christe is naturally in vsus, yet he sayth also that we be naturally in him. And neuerthelesse in so saiyng, he ment not of the natural and corporal presence of the substance of Christes body & of ours (for as oure bodyes bee not after that sorte within his body, so is not his body after that sorte within our bodyes) but he ment that Christe in his incarnacion receyued of vsus a mortall nature, and vnited the same vntounto his diuinitee, and so be we naturally in him.
And the sacramentes of Baptisme and of his holy supper (if we rightly vse the same) do moste assuredly certifye vsus, that wee bee partakers of his godly nature, hauyng geuen vntounto vsus by him, immortalitee and life euerlastyng, & so is Christ naturally in vsus. And so bee wee one with Christ, and Christ with vsus, not onelyonly in wylle & mynde, but also in very naturall properties.
And so concludeth Hilarius against Arrius, that Christe is one with his father, not in purpose and wylle onelyonly, but also in very nature.
And as the vnion betwene Christe and vsus in baptisme is spiritual, and requyreth no real and corporall presence, so lykewise oure vnion with Christ in his holy supper is spiritual, and therfore requyreth no real and corporall presence.
And therfore Hilarius speaking there of both the sacramentes, maketh no difference betwene our vnion with Christ in baptisme, & our vnion with him in his holy supper. And sayth further, that as Christ is in vsus, so be wee in him▪ whiche the Papistes can not vnderstand corporally and really, except they wyll say, that all our bodyes be corporally within Christes body. Thus is Hilarius answered vntounto, both plainly & shortly.
And this answere of Hilarius wyll serue also vntounto Cyril,The answere to Cyrillus. whom they allege to speake after the same sort that Hilarius doth, that Christ is naturally in vsus. The wordes whiche they recite be these. We denye not (sayth Cyril against the heretike) but we be spiritually ioyned to Christ, by fayth and syncere charitee: but that we shuld hauehave no maner of coniunction in our fleshe with Christ, that we vtterly deny, and thynke it vtterly discrepant from Goddes holy scriptures. For who doubteth, but Christ is so the vyne tre, & we so the branches, as we get thence our life. Heare what sainct Paule sayth, Wee be all one body with Christe, for though we be many, we be one in him. All we participate in one foode. Thynketh this hereticke that we knowe not the strength and vertue of the mistical benediction? whiche when it is made in vsus, doth it not make Christ by cōmunication of his fleshe to dwell corporally in vsus? Why be the membres of faythful mens bodyes called the membres of Christe?1. Cor. 6. Knowe you not (sayth sainct Paule) that your membres be the membres of Christ? And shall I make the membres of Christ, partes of the whoores body? God forbyd. And our sauiour also sayth:Iohn. 6. He that eateth my fleshe and drynketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him.
Although in these wordes Cyril doth say, that Christ doth dwell corporally in vsus, whan we receiue y• mistical benediction: yet he neither sayth that Christ dwelleth corporally in the bread, nor that he dwelleth in vsus corporally onelyonly at suche tymes as wee receiue the sacrament, nor that he dwelleth in vsus, & not we in him, but he sayth aswel, yt we dwel in him, as that he dwelleth in vsus. Whiche dwellyng is neither corporal nor local, but an heauenly, spiritual & supernatural dwellyng, wherby so long as we dwell in him & he in vsus, we hauehave by him euerlastyng life. And therfore Cyril sayth in the same place,Ihon. 15. that Christ is the vyne, and wee the braunches, because that by him wee hauehave life. For as the braunches receiue lyfe and nourishement of the body of the vyne, so receiue we by him the natural propertie of his body, whiche is life and immortalitee, & by that meanes we beyng his membres, do liue, and are spiritually norished.
And this ment Cyril by this worde Corporally, when he sayth, that Christ dwelleth corporally in vsus. And the same ment also sainct Hilarius by this woorde Naturally, whan he sayd that Christ dwelleth naturally in vsus. And as sainct Paule,Colloss. 2. whan he sayd that in Christ dwelleth the full diuinitee Corporally, by this worde Corporally, he ment not that the diuinitee is a body, & so by that body dwelleth bodely in Christ. But by this worde Corporally, he ment that the diuinitee is not in Christ accidentally, lightly and slenderly, but substantially and perfectely, wyth all hys mighte and power: so that CHRIST was not onelyonly a mortall manne, to suffre for vsus, but also hee was immortall God, able to redeeme vsus.
So S. Cyril, whan he sayd that Christ is in vsus corporally, he mente that we hauehave him in vsus, not lightly and to small effecte and purpose, but that we hauehave him in vsus substantially, pythelye, and effectually, in suche wise, that wee hauehave by hym redemption and euerlastinge lyfe.
And this I sucke not out of myne owne fyngers,In Iohā. līb. 4. cap. 17 but hauehave it of Cyrils owne expresse words, where he saith: A lyttle benediction draweth the whole manne to god, and filleth him with grace and after this manner Christe dwelleth in vsus, and we in CHRIST.
But as for corporall eatinge and drinkinge with our mouths, and digesting with our bodies Cyril neuer ment that Christ doth so dwel in vsus, as he plainly declareth.
Our sacrament (saith he) doth not affirme the eatinge of a manne,An athema…tismo. 11. drawynge wickedly christen people to hauehave grosse imaginacions and carnal fantasies of suche thinges as be fine and pure, & receiued onelyonly with a sincere faithe. But as twoo waxes,In Iohā. Lib 4. Cap. …7. that be molten & put togither, they close so in one, that eueryevery part of the one, is ioyned to eueryevery parte of the other, euen so (saith Cyril) he that receiueth the flesh and bloode of the Lord, muste needes bee so ioyned with Christ, that Christ must be in him, and he in Christ.
By these wordes of Cyril appeareth his mind plainly, that wee maye not grossely and rudelye thinke of the eating of Christ with our mouths, but with our faith, by which eatinge (although he be absente hence bodely and be in the eternall life and glorye with his father) yet we bee made partakers of hys nature, to bee immortal, and hauehave eternall lyfe and glorye with him.
And thus is declared the minde aswell of Cyryll as of Hylarius.
Basilius. Nissenus & Nazianzenus.And here may be wel enough passed ouer Basilius, Gregorius Nissenus and Gregorius Nazianzenus, partely bycause they speake lyttle of this mattier, and partely bycause they maye bee easyly aunswered vntounto, by that which is, before declared and often repeted, whiche is that a fygure hath the name of the thing wherof it is the figure, and therefore of the fygure maye be spoken the same thinge, that maye be spoken of the thynge it selfe.
And as concerninge the eatinge of Christes fleshe and drinkinge of his bludde, they spake of the spirituall eatinge and drinkinge thereof by faith, and not of corporall eating and drnkinge with the mouth and teethe.
The aunswere to Emissenus.Likewise Eusebius Emissenus is shortly answered vntounto, for he speaketh not of any real and corporall conuersion of breade and wyne into Christes body and bludde, nor of any corporall and reall eating and drinkinge of the same, but hee speaketh of a sacramentall conuersion of bread and wyne, and of a spirituall eatinge and drynkyng of the body and bloode. After whiche sorte, Christe is as well present in baptisme (as the same Eusebius plainly there declareth) as he is in the Lordes table. Which is not carnally and corporally, but by faithe and spiritually. But of thys authour is spoken beefore more at large in the matter of transubstantiation. fo. 24.
And now I wyll come to the saying of S. Ambrose,The aunswere to Ambrosius de sacramē tis libro. 4. cap. 4. whiche is alwaies in their mouthes. Before the consecration saith he (as they allege) it is bread, but after the woordes of consecration it is the body of Chryste.
For answere herevnto, yt muste be fyrste knowen what Consecration is.
Consecration is the separation of anye thing from a prophane and wordely vse,Consecration. vntounto a spirituall and godly vse.
And therfore whan vsual and common water is taken frome other vses, and put to the vse of baptisme in the name of the father and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost, than it may rightly be called Consecrated water, that is to saye, water put to an holy vse.
Euen so whan cōmon bread & wine be taken & seuered frō other bread and wyne, to the vse of ye holy cōmunion, that portion of bread and wyne, although it be of the same substance that the other is, frō the whych it is seuered, yet it is nowe called consecrated or holy bread, and holy wyne.
Not that the bread and wine hauehave or can hauehave any holynes in them, but that they be vsed to an holy worke, and represent holy & godly thinges. And therfore S. Dionyse calleth the breade,De eccl Hie rar. cap. 3. holy breade, and the cuppe an holy cuppe, as soone as they bee sette vppon the aultate to the vse of the holy communion.
But specially they maye be called holye and consecrated, when they be separated to that holy vse of Christes owne wordes, whiche he spake for that purpose,Math. 26 Mat. 14. Luc. 22. saying of the breade: This is my body, And of the wyne: This is my bloude.
So that commonly the authors, before those wordes be spoken, do take the breade and wyne but as other common bread and wine, but after those woordes be pronounced ouer theym, than they take theym for consecrated and holy breade and wyne.
Not that the bread and wine can be partakers of any holynes or godlynesse, or can be the body and bloode of Christ, but that they represent the very bodye and bloude of Christe, and the holy foode and nourishement, which we hauehave by him, And so thei be called by the names of the body & bloud of Christ, as the signe, token and figure is called by the name of the very thinge, whiche it sheweth and signifieth.
And therefore as S. Ambrose in the wordes before cited by the aduersaries, saith, that beefore the consecration, it is bread, and after the cō secration, it is Christes body: so in other places he dothe more plainly sette forth his meaninge, saying these wordes:De his qui mysterijs ini ciātur ca. ul. Before the benediction of the heauenly wordes, it is called an other kinde of thinge, but after the consecration, is signified the body of Christ. Likewise before the consecration it is called an other thing, but after the consecration it is named the bludde of Christe.De sacramē tis libro. 5. cap. 4. And again he saith: When I treated of the sacramentes, I tolde you that that thinge whiche is offered before the woordes of Christ, is called Bread, but when the wordes of Christ be pronounced, than it is not called bread, but it is called by the name of Christes body.
By whiche woordes of S. Ambrose, it appereth plainly, that the bread is called by the name of Christes body after the consecration, and although it be styll bread, yet after consecration it is dignyfyed by the name of the thing, whych it representeth, as at lengthe is declared before in the proces of transubstantiation, and speciallye in the woordes of Theodoretus.
And as the bread is a corporal meat,De sacramē tis lib. 6. ca. 1. and corporally eaten, so saith S. Ambrose, is the bodye of Christe a spirituall meate, and spiritually eaten, and that requireth no corporall presence.
Now let vsus examine S. Iohn Chrysostome,The aunswere to Chrysostomus. who in sounde of woordes, maketh moste for the aduersaries of the truthe: but they that bee familyar and acquainted with Chrysostomes maner of speaking (how in all his writinges hee is full of allusions, schemes, tropes and figures, shall soone perceyue, that he healpeth nothyng their purposes, as it shal wel appeare by the discussyng of those places, whiche the Papistes do allege of him, whiche bee specially two. One is in sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs. And the other is De perditione Iudae.
And as touchyng the first, no mā can speake more plainly against them, than sainct Iohn Chrysostome speaketh in that sermone. Wherefore it is to be wōdered, why they should allege him for their partie, vnlesse they be so blynde in their opinion, that they can see nothyng, nor decerne what maketh for them, nor what against them.… sermone de Eucharistia in Encaenijs. For there he hath these woordes. Whan you comme to these mysteries (speakyng of the Lordes boorde and holy Communion) do not thynke that you receyue by a man the body of God, meanyng of Christe. These bee S. Ihon Chrysostome his owne wordes in that place.
Than if we receiue not the body of Christe at the handes of a man, Ergo, the body of Christ is not really, corporally and naturally in the sacrament, and so geuen to vsus by the priest. And than it foloweth, that all the Papistes bee lyars, because they fayue and teache the contrary.
But this place of Chrysostome is touched before more at length in answeryng to the Papistes Transubstantiation.
Wherfore nowe shall be answered the other place whiche the allege of Chrysostome in these wordes.De…rditione Iudae. Here he is present in the sacrament and dothe consecrate, whiche garnished the table at the maundy or last supper. For it is not man, whiche maketh of the bread and wyne, beyng set furth to be consecrated, the body and bloud of Christe, but it is Christe him selfe: (whiche for vsus is crucifyed) that maketh him selfe to bee there present. The wordes are vttered and pronounced by the mouthe of the priest, but the consecration is by the vertue, myght, and grace of God hym selfe. And as this saying of God (Increase,Genes. 1. be multiplied, and fyl the yearth) ones spoken by God, toke alwayes effect towarde generation. Euen so the saiyng of Christe, Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22.This is my bodye▪ beyng but ones spoken, doth throughout all churches to this present, and shall to his last commyng, geue force and strength to this sacrifice.
Thus farre they reherse of Chrysostomes wordes. Whiche woordes although they sound muche for their purpose, yet if they be throughly considered, and cōferred with other places of the same author, it shall well appeare, that he mente nothyng lesse, than that Christes bodye should be corporally and naturally presēt in the bread and wyne, but that in suche sorte he is in heauen only, and in our myndes by fayth we ascend vp into heauen, to eat him there, although sacramentally as in a signe and figure, he be in the bread and wyne (and so is he also in the water of Baptisme) & in theim that rightly receiue the bread & wyne, he is in a much more perfectiō than corporally (whiche should auayle them nothyng) but in them he is spiritually with his diuine power, geuing them eternall lyfe.
And as in the first creation of the world, al lyuyng creatures had their first life by gods only word. (for god only spake his word, and al thinges were created by and by accordingly) and after their creation hee spake these woordes:Genes. 1. Increase and multiply▪ and by the vertue of those wordes, al thinges hauehave gendred and increaced euer sithens that tyme: euen so after that Christe sayd;Math. 26 Marc. 14 Luc. 22. Eate, this is my body. & Drink, this is my bloud, Do this hereafter in remembrance of me. by vertu of these words, and not by vertu of any man, the bread and wine be so consecrated, that who so euer with a lyuely faithe dothe eate that bread and drink that wine, doth spiritually eate, drynke and feede vponupon Christe, syttynge in heauen with his father. And this is the whole meanynge of S. Chrysostome.
And therefore dooeth hee so often saye, that wee receaue Christe in baptisme, and whanne he hathe spoken of the receauinge of hym in the holy Communion, by and by he speaketh of the receauing of him in baptisme, withoute declarynge any diuersytee of his presence in the one, from his presence in the other.
Ad populū Antiochenū hom. 61. & in Ioannem hom. 45.He saieth also in many places, that we ascende into heauen, and do eate Christe sittinge there aboue.
AND where S. Chrysostome …nd other Authors doo speake of the wonderfull operation of God in his sacramentes, passynge all mannes wytte, senses, and reason, he meaneth not of the workyng of God in the water, bread and wyne, but of the meruaylous workyng of God in the hartes of them that receaue the sacramentes, secretely, inwardly, and spiritually transformyng them, renuyng, fedyng, comfortyng and nourishyng them with his fleshe and bloud, thorough his most holy spirite, the same fleshe and bloud styll remaynyng in heauen.
Thus is this place of Chrysostome sufficiently answered vntounto. And yf any man requyre any more, than let hym looke what is recited of the same author before in the matter of transubstantiation.
Yet furthermore they bryng for theim Theophilus Alexandrinus,The aunswere to Theophilactus in Mat. 14. who (as they alledge) saieth thus. CHRISTE gyuynge thankes, dydde breake, (which also we do) addynge therto praier. And he gaue vntounto them, sayeng: Take, this is my body. this that I doo now gyue, and that whiche ye nowe doo take. For the breade is not a figure onelyonly of Christes body, but it is chaunged into the very body of Christe. For Christ saith: The bread whiche I wyll geue you,Iohn. 6. is my fleshe. Neuerthelesse the fleshe of Christ is not sene for our weakenesse, but bread and wyne ar familiar vntounto vsus. And surely yf we shoulde visibly see fleshe and bloude, we coulde not abyde it. And therefore our Lord, bearing with our weakenes, doth reteyne and keepe the forme and apparaunce of bread and wyne, but he doth tourne the very bread and wyne into the very fleshe and bloude of Christe.
These be the wordes whyche the Papistes do cite out of Theophilus vponupon the gospel of saint Marke. But by this one place it appeereth euidently, either howe negligente the Papistes bee in serchyng out and examynyng the saiynges of the authors, which they allege for their purpose, or els howe false and deceytfull they be, whyche willyngly and wittyngly hauehave made in this one place, and as it were with one breath, two loude and shamefull lyes.
The first is, that bycause they wolde geue the more authorite to the woordes by them alleged, they (like fals Potycaties that sell quid pro quo) falsifie the authors name, fatherynge suche sayenges vponupon Theophilus Alexandrinus, an olde and auncient author, whiche were in dede none of his wordes, but wer the wordes of Theophilactus, who was many yeres after Theophilus Alexandrinus. But suche hathe euer been the Papisticall subtiltees, to set forth their owne inuentions, dreames, and lyes, vnderunder the name of antiquitee and auncient Authors
The second lye or falshod is, that thei falsifie the authors wordes and meanyng, subuertynge the truth of his doctrine. For where Theophylactus (accordynge to the catholike doctrine of auncient authors) sayth, that almightie God (cō descēdyng to our infirmitee) reserueth the kynde of bread & wyne, and yet tourneth them into the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud: They saye that he reserueth the formes and apparances of bread & wyne, and turneth them into the Uerite of his fleshe and bloud. so tornyng and alteryng kyndes into fourmes and apparances, and vertue into Ueritee, that of the vertue of the fleshe and bloud, thei make the veritee of his flesh and bloud. And thus hauehave they falsified as well the name as the wordes of Theophilactus, turnyng veritee into playne and flatte falsitee.
But to sette foorth playnely the meanyng of Theophylactus in this matter▪ As hot and burnyng yron is yron styll, and yet hath the force of fyer, and as the fleshe of Christ styl remainynge fleshe, geueth lyfe, as the flesshe of hym that is God: so the sacramentall bread & wyne remayne styll in their propre kyndes, and yet to them that worthyly eate and drynke them, they be tourned not into the corporall presence, but into the vertue of Christes fleshe and bloud.
And although Theophylactus spake of the eatyng of the very body of Christ, and the drinkyng of his very bloud, (and not only of the figures of them) and of the cōuersion of the bread and wyne into the body and bloud of Christ, yet he meaneth not of a grosse, carnal, corporall, and sensible conuersion of the breade and wyne, nor of a lyke eatyng and drynkynge of his fleshe and bloud (for so not only our stomakes wold yerne and oure heartes abhorre to eate his fleshe and to drynke his bloude, but also suche eatyng and drynkynge could nothyng profit and auayle vsus) but he spake of the celestial and spiritual eatyng of Christ, and of a sacramental conuersion of the bread, callyng the bread not onelyonly a figure, but also the bodye of Christ…, geuynge vsus by those woordes to vnderstande, that in the sacramente wee not onelyonly eate corporally the bread (whyche is a sacrament and figure of Christes body) but spiritually we eate also his very body, & drynke his very bloud. And this doctrine of Theophilactus is both true, godly and comfortable.
The aunswere to Hieronymus super Epistoad Titum.Besides this, our aduersaries doo allege saint Hierome vponupon the Epistle ad Titum, that there is as great difference betwene the loaues called Panes propositionis, and the body of Christe, as there is betwene a shadowe of a bodye, and the body it selfe, and as there is betwene an ymage and the thyng it self, and betwene an example of thynges to come, and the thynges that be prefigured by them.
These wordes of saincte Hierome truely vnderstand, serue nothyng for thentent of the Papistes. For he ment that the Shew breade of the lawe, was but a darke shadow of Christ to come, but the sacrament of Christes body is a clere testimony, that Christ is already comme, & that he hath performed that whiche was promysed, and doth presently comforte and feede vsus spiritually with his precious body and bloud, not withstandyng that corporally he is ascended into heuen.
Augustinus Sedulius.And the same is to be answered vntounto all that the aduersaries bryng of S. Augustin, Sedulius, Leo,Leo. Fulgentius. Cassiodorus Gregorius. Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Gregorius, and other, concernyng the eatyng of Christe in the sacrament.
Which thyng can not be vnderstanded plainly as the wordes sounde, but fyguratiuely and spiritually, as before is sufficiently proued, and herafter shalbe more fully declared in the fourth parte of this booke.
But here Iohn Damascene maye in no wyse be passed ouer,Damascenus de fide orth. lib. 4. cap. 14. whom for his auctoritee the aduersaries of Christes true naturall bodye do reken as a stout champion sufficient to defend all the whole matter alone, But neyther is the authoritee of Damascene so greate, that they may oppresse vsus thereby, nor his woordes so playne for them, as they boaste and vntruely pretende. For he is but a yonge newe author in the respect of those which we hauehave brought in for our party And in diuers pointes he varieth frō the most ancient authors (if he meane as thei expound him) as when he saith, that the bread and wine be not figures, which all the old authors call figures, and that the bread and wyne consume not, nor be auoyded downewarde, which Origen and S. Augustine affirme, or that they be not called the examples of Christes body after the consecration, whiche shall manyfestely appere false by the Liturgy ascribed vntounto S. Basill.
And moreouer, the sayde Damascene was one of the byshoppe of Romes chiefe proctoures against the Emperours, and as it were his ryght hande, to set abroade all ydolatrye by his owne handewrytynge. And therefore yf he loste his hande (as they saye he dyd) he lost it by Goddes moste righteous iudgemente, what soeuer they faine and fable of the miraculous restitution of the same. And yet what so euer the sayd Damascene writeth in other mattiers, surely in this place wiche the aduersaries doo alledge, he writeth spiritually and godly, although the Papistes either of ignorance mystake hym, or els willyngly wraste him and writhe hym to their purpose, cleane contrary to his meanynge.
The sum of Damascene his doctrine in this matter is this. That as Christ beyng both God & man hath in him two natures, so hath he twoo natiuitees, one eternal, & thother temporall. And so lykewise we (beyng as it were double men, or hauyng eueryevery one of vsus two men in vsus, the new man & the old man, the spirituall man & the carnall man) hauehave a double natiuitee: One of oure first carnall father Adam (by whom as by ancient inheritance cometh vntounto vsus malediction and euerlastyng damnation) & the other of our heauenly Adam, that is to saye, of Christ, by whom we be made heires of celestiall benediction, and euerlastyng glory and immortalitee.
And bycause this Adam is spirituall, therefore our generation by hym muste be spirituall, & our feedyng muste bee lykewise spirituall. And our spirituall generation by hym is playnly set forth in baptisme, and our spirituall meate and foode is set foorth in the holy Cōmunion & supper of the Lorde. And because our sightes bee so feble that we cannot see the spiritual water wherwith we be washed in baptisme, nor the spiritual meat wherwith we be fedde at the Lordes table, therfore to healpe oure infirmities, and to make vsus the better to see the same with a pure fayth, our sauiour Christ hath set furth the same, as it were before our eyes, by sensible signes and tokens, whiche we be daily vsed and accustomed vntounto.
And because the common custome of men is to washe in water, therfore our spiritual regeneration in Christe, or spirituall washyng in his blud, is declared vntounto vsus in baptisme by water. Lykewise oure spiritual norishement & feadyng in Christ, is sette before oure eyes by bread and wyne, because they be meates and drynkes whiche chiefly and vsually we be fedde withal, that as they feade the body, so doth Christe with his fleshe and bloud spiritually feade the soule.
And therefore the bread and wyne bee called examples of Christes fleshe and bloud, and also they be called his very fleshe and blode, to signifie vntounto vsus, that as they feade vsus carnally, so do they admonishe vsus that Christe with his fleshe and bloud doth feade vsus spiritually, and moste truely vntounto euerlastyng life.
And as almyghty God by his moste myghty worde and his hollye spirite and infinite power brought forth all creatures in the begynnyng, and euer sithens hath preserued theym, euen so by the same worde and power he woorketh in vsus from time to tyme this meruailous spiritual generation & wonderfull spirituall norishment & feedyng, which is wrought onelyonly by God, and is comprehended and receiued of vsus by fayth.
And as bread and drynke by natural norishement be chaunged into a mannes body, and yet the body is not chaunged, but the same that it was before: so although the bread and wyne be sacramentally chaunged into Christes body, yet his body is the same and in the same place that it was before, that is to say, in heauen, without any alteracion of the same.
And the bread and wyne bee not so chaunged into the fleshe and bloud of Christ, that they bee made one nature, but they remayne styll distinct in nature, so that the bread in it selfe is not his fleshe, & the wyne his bloud, but vntounto them that worthely eate and drinke the bread and wyne, to them the bread and wyne be his flesh and bloud, that is to say, by thynges naturall and whiche they be accustomed vntounto, they bee exalted vntounto thynges aboue nature. For y• sacramental bread and wyne be not base and naked figures, but so pithy and effectuous, that whosoeuer worthely eateth them, eateth spiritually Christes fleshe and bloud, and hath by them euerlastyng life.
Wherfore, whosoeuer cōmeth to the Lordes table, must come with all humilitee, feare, reuerence and puritie of life, as to receiue not onelyonly bread and wyne, but also our sauior Christ, both God and man, with al his benefites, to the relief and sustētacion both of their bodies and soules.
This is briefly the summe and true meanyng of Damascene, concernyng this matter.
Wherfore they that gather of hym, either the natural presence of Christes body in the sacramētes of bread and wyne, or the adoration of the outward and visible sacrament, or that after the cōsecracion there remayneth no bread nor wyne nor other substaunce but onelyonly the substaunce of the body and bloude of Christe: eyther they vnderstand not Damascen, or els of wilful frowardnes they wyll not vnderstande hym: whyche rather seemeth to bee true, by suche collections as they hauehave vniustly gathered & noted out of him.
For although he say, that Christe is the spirituall meate, yet as in baptisme the holy ghost is not in the water, but in hym that is vnfaynedly baptised: so Damascene ment not yt Christ is in the bread, but in hym yt worthily eateth the bred.
And though he say that the bread is Christes body, and the wyne his bloud, yet he mente not that the bread considered in it selfe, or the wyne in it selfe, beyng not receyued, is his fleshe and bloud: but to suche as by vnfayned faith woorthely receyue the breade and wyne, to suche the breade and wyne, are called by Damascene the body and bloude of Christe, bycause that suche persons, through the workyng of the holy gost, be so knytte and vnited spirituallye to Christes fleshe and bloude, and to his diuinitee also, that they bee fedde with them vntounto euerlastyng life.
Furthermore Damascene sayeth not that the sacrament should be worshipped and adored, as the Papistes terme it (whiche is playne ydolatrye) but we must worship Christ God and man. And yet we may not worship him in bread and wyne, but sittyng in heauen with his father, and beyng spiritually within our selues.
Nor he sayeth not, that there remayneth no bread nor wyne, nor none other substaunce, but onelyonly the substaunce of the body and bloud of Christe: but he sayeth playnely, that as a burnyng coale is not wodde onelyonly, but fyre & wodde ioyned together. so the bread of the Cōmunion is not bread onelyonly, but bread ioyned to the diuinitee. But those that say, that there is none other substance but the substāce of the body and bloud of Christe, doo not onelyonly denye that there is bread and wyne, but by force they must denye also, that there is either Christes diuinitee or his soule. For if the fleshe and bloud, the soule and diuinitee of Christe bee foure substances, and in the sacrament be but two of them, that is to say, his fleshe and bloud, than where be his soule and diuinitee? And thus these men diuide Iesus, separatyng his diuinitee from his humanitee. Of whom sainct Ihon sayeth, Ioh. 4.Whosoeuer diuideth Iesus, is not of God, but he is Antichrist.
And moreouer these men do so separate Christes body from his membres in the sacrament, that they leaue hym no mans body at all. For as Damascene saith,In librode duabus in Christo v…l…ntatibus▪ that the distinction of membres pertayne so muche to the nature of a mannes body, that where there is no suche distinction, there is no perfecte mans body.
But by these Papistes doctrine, there is no suche distinction of membres in the sacramente, for eyther there is no head, fete, handes, armes, legges, mouthe, eyes, and nose at all: or elles all is heade, all feete, all handes, all armes, all legges, all mouthe, all eyes, and all nose. And so they make of Christes body, no mannes bodye at all.
Thus beynge confuted the Papistes errours as well concernyng Transubstantiation, as the reall, corporall and natural presence of Christ in the sacrament, whiche were two principall pointes purposed in the begynnyng of this woorke. Nowe it is tyme som thyng to speke of the third errour of the Papistes, whyche is concernynge the eatynge of CHRISTES very bodye and drynkyng of his bloude.
Thus endeth the thirde booke.